Manufacturing a printhead that has relatively high resolution and print-speed raises a number of problems.
Difficulties in manufacturing pagewidth printheads of any substantial size arise due to the relatively small dimensions of standard silicon wafers that are used in printhead (or printhead module) manufacture. For example, if it is desired to make an 8 inch wide pagewidth printhead, only one such printhead can be laid out on a standard 8-inch wafer, since such wafers are circular in plan. Manufacturing a pagewidth printhead from two or more smaller modules can reduce this limitation to some extent, but raises other problems related to providing a joint between adjacent printhead modules that is precise enough to avoid visible artifacts (which would typically take the form of noticeable lines) when the printhead is used. The problem is exacerbated in relatively high-resolution applications because of the tight tolerances dictated by the small spacing between nozzles.
The quality of a joint region between adjacent printhead modules relies on factors including a precision with which the abutting ends of each module can be manufactured, the accuracy with which they can be aligned when assembled into a single printhead, and other more practical factors such as management of ink channels behind the nozzles. It will be appreciated that the difficulties include relative vertical displacement of the printhead modules with respect to each other.
Whilst some of these issues may be dealt with by careful design and manufacture, the level of precision required renders it relatively expensive to manufacture printheads within the required tolerances. It would be desirable to provide a solution to one or more of the problems associated with precision manufacture and assembly of multiple printhead modules to form a printhead, and especially a pagewidth printhead.
In some cases, it is desirable to produce a number of different printhead module types or lengths on a substrate to maximise usage of the substrate's surface area. However, different sizes and types of modules will have different numbers and layouts of print nozzles, potentially including different horizontal and vertical offsets. Where two or more modules are to be joined to form a single printhead, there is also the problem of dealing with different seam shapes between abutting ends of joined modules, which again may incorporate vertical or horizontal offsets between the modules. Printhead controllers are usually dedicated application specific integrated circuits (ASICs) designed for specific use with a single type of printhead module, that is used by itself rather than with other modules. It would be desirable to provide a way in which different lengths and types of printhead modules could be accounted for using a single printer controller.
Printer controllers face other difficulties when two or more printhead modules are involved, especially if it is desired to send dot data to each of the printheads directly (rather than via a single printhead connected to the controller). One concern is that data delivered to different length controllers at the same rate will cause the shorter of the modules to be ready for printing before any longer modules. Where there is little difference involved, the issue may not be of importance, but for large length differences, the result is that the bandwidth of a shared memory from which the dot data is supplied to the modules is effectively left idle once one of the modules is full and the remaining module or modules is still being filled. It would be desirable to provide a way of improving memory bandwidth usage in a system comprising a plurality of printhead modules of uneven length.
In any printing system that includes multiple nozzles on a printhead or printhead module, there is the possibility of one or more of the nozzles failing in the field, or being inoperative due to manufacturing defect. Given the relatively large size of a typical printhead module, it would be desirable to provide some form of compensation for one or more “dead” nozzles. Where the printhead also outputs fixative on a per-nozzle basis, it is also desirable that the fixative is provided in such a way that dead nozzles are compensated for.
A printer controller can take the form of an integrated circuit, comprising a processor and one or more peripheral hardware units for implementing specific data manipulation functions. A number of these units and the processor may need access to a common resource such as memory. One way of arbitrating between multiple access requests for a common resource is timeslot arbitration, in which access to the resource is guaranteed to a particular requestor during a predetermined timeslot.
One difficulty with this arrangement lies in the fact that not all access requests make the same demands on the resource in terms of timing and latency. For example, a memory read requires that data be fetched from memory, which may take a number of cycles, whereas a memory write can commence immediately. Timeslot arbitration does not take into account these differences, which may result in accesses being performed in a less efficient manner than might otherwise be the case. It would be desirable to provide a timeslot arbitration scheme that improved this efficiency as compared with prior art timeslot arbitration schemes.
Also of concern when allocating resources in a timeslot arbitration scheme is the fact that the priority of an access request may not be the same for all units. For example, it would be desirable to provide a timeslot arbitration scheme in which one requester (typically the memory) is granted special priority such that its requests are dealt with earlier than would be the case in the absence of such priority.
In systems that use a memory and cache, a cache miss (in which an attempt to load data or an instruction from a cache fails) results in a memory access followed by a cache update. It is often desirable when updating the cache in this way to update data other than that which was actually missed. A typical example would be a cache miss for a byte resulting in an entire word or line of the cache associated with that byte being updated. However, this can have the effect of tying up bandwidth between the memory (or a memory manager) and the processor where the bandwidth is such that several cycles are required to transfer the entire word or line to the cache. It would be desirable to provide a mechanism for updating a cache that improved cache update speed and/or efficiency.
Most integrated circuits an externally provided signal as (or to generate) a clock, often provided from a dedicated clock generation circuit. This is often due to the difficulties of providing an onboard clock that can operate at a speed that is predictable. Manufacturing tolerances of such on-board clock generation circuitry can result in clock rates that vary by a factor of two, and operating temperatures can increase this margin by an additional factor of two. In some cases, the particular rate at which the clock operates is not of particular concern. However, where the integrated circuit will be writing to an internal circuit that is sensitive to the time over which a signal is provided, it may be undesirable to have the signal be applied for too long or short a time. For example, flash memory is sensitive to being written too for too long a period. It would be desirable to provide a mechanism for adjusting a rate of an on-chip system clock to take into account the impact of manufacturing variations on clockspeed.
One form of attacking a secure chip is to induce (usually by increasing) a clock speed that takes the logic outside its rated operating frequency. One way of doing this is to reduce the temperature of the integrated circuit, which can cause the clock to race. Above a certain frequency, some logic will start malfunctioning. In some cases, the malfunction can be such that information on the chip that would otherwise be secure may become available to an external connection. It would be desirable to protect an integrated circuit from such attacks.
In an integrated circuit comprising non-volatile memory, a power failure can result in unintentional behaviour. For example, if an address or data becomes unreliable due to falling voltage supplied to the circuit but there is still sufficient power to cause a write, incorrect data can be written. Even worse, the data (incorrect or not) could be written to the wrong memory. The problem is exacerbated with multi-word writes. It would be desirable to provide a mechanism for reducing or preventing spurious writes when power to an integrated circuit is failing.
In an integrated circuit, it is often desirable to reduce unauthorised access to the contents of memory. This is particularly the case where the memory includes a key or some other form of security information that allows the integrated circuit to communicate with another entity (such as another integrated circuit, for example) in a secure manner. It would be particularly advantageous to prevent attacks involving direct probing of memory addresses by physically investigating the chip (as distinct from electronic or logical attacks via manipulation of signals and power supplied to the integrated circuit).
It is also desirable to provide an environment where the manufacturer of the integrated circuit (or some other authorised entity) can verify or authorize code to be run on an integrated circuit.
Another desideratum would be the ability of two or more entities, such as integrated circuits, to communicate with each other in a secure manner. It would also be desirable to provide a mechanism for secure communication between a first entity and a second entity, where the two entities, whilst capable of some form of secure communication, are not able to establish such communication between themselves.
In a system that uses resources (such as a printer, which uses inks) it may be desirable to monitor and update a record related to resource usage. Authenticating ink quality can be a major issue, since the attributes of inks used by a given printhead can be quite specific. Use of incorrect ink can result in anything from misfiring or poor performance to damage or destruction of the printhead. It would therefore be desirable to provide a system that enables authentication of the correct ink being used, as well as providing various support systems secure enabling refilling of ink cartridges.
In a system that prevents unauthorized programs from being loaded onto or run on an integrated circuit, it can be laborious to allow developers of software to access the circuits during software development.
Enabling access to integrated circuits of a particular type requires authenticating software with a relatively high-level key. Distributing the key for use by developers is inherently unsafe, since a single leak of the key outside the organization could endanger security of all chips that use a related key to authorize programs. Having a small number of people with high-security clearance available to authenticate programs for testing can be inconvenient, particularly in the case where frequent incremental changes in programs during development require testing. It would be desirable to provide a mechanism for allowing access to one or more integrated circuits without risking the security of other integrated circuits in a series of such integrated circuits.
In symmetric key security, a message, denoted by M, is plaintext. The process of transforming M into ciphertext C, where the substance of M is hidden, is called encryption. The process of transforming C back into M is called decryption. Referring to the encryption function as E, and the decryption function as D, we have the following identities:                E[M]=C        D[C]=M        
Therefore the following identity is true:                D[E[M]]=M        
A symmetric encryption algorithm is one where:                the encryption function E relies on key K1,        the decryption function D relies on key K2,        K2 can be derived from K1, and        K1 can be derived from K2.        
In most symmetric algorithms, K1 equals K2. However, even if K1 does not equal K2, given that one key can be derived from the other, a single key K can suffice for the mathematical definition. Thus:                EK[M]=C        DK[C]=M        
The security of these algorithms rests very much in the key K. Knowledge of K allows anyone to encrypt or decrypt. Consequently K must remain a secret for the duration of the value of M. For example, M may be a wartime message “My current position is grid position 123-456”. Once the war is over the value of M is greatly reduced, and if K is made public, the knowledge of the combat unit's position may be of no relevance whatsoever. The security of the particular symmetric algorithm is a function of two things: the strength of the algorithm and the length of the key.
An asymmetric encryption algorithm is one where:                the encryption function E relies on key K1,        the decryption function D relies on key K2,        K2 cannot be derived from K1 in a reasonable amount of time, and        K1 cannot be derived from K2 in a reasonable amount of time.        
Thus:                E1[M]=C        DK2[C]=M        
These algorithms are also called public-key because one key K1 can be made public. Thus anyone can encrypt a message (using K1) but only the person with the corresponding decryption key (K2) can decrypt and thus read the message.
In most cases, the following identity also holds:                EK2[M]=C        DK1[C]=MThis identity is very important because it implies that anyone with the public key K1 can see M and know that it came from the owner of K2. No-one else could have generated C because to do so would imply knowledge of K2. This gives rise to a different application, unrelated to encryption—digital signatures:        
A number of public key cryptographic algorithms exist. Most are impractical to implement, and many generate a very large C for a given M or require enormous keys. Still others, while secure, are far too slow to be practical for several years. Because of this, many public key systems are hybrid—a public key mechanism is used to transmit a symmetric session key, and then the session key is used for the actual messages.
All of the algorithms have a problem in terms of key selection. A random number is simply not secure enough. The two large primes p and q must be chosen carefully—there are certain weak combinations that can be factored more easily (some of the weak keys can be tested for). But nonetheless, key selection is not a simple matter of randomly selecting 1024 bits for example. Consequently the key selection process must also be secure.
Symmetric and asymmetric schemes both suffer from a difficulty in allowing establishment of multiple relationships between one entity and a two or more others, without the need to provide multiple sets of keys. For example, if a main entity wants to establish secure communications with two or more additional entities, it will need to maintain a different key for each of the additional entities. For practical reasons, it is desirable to avoid generating and storing large numbers of keys. To reduce key numbers, two or more of the entities may use the same key to communicate with the main entity. However, this means that the main entity cannot be sure which of the entities it is communicating with. Similarly, messages from the main entity to one of the entities can be decrypted by any of the other entities with the same key. It would be desirable if a mechanism could be provided to allow secure communication between a main entity and one or more other entities that overcomes at least some of the shortcomings of prior art.
In a system where a first entity is capable of secure communication of some form, it may be desirable to establish a relationship with another entity without providing the other entity with any information related the first entity's security features. Typically, the security features might include a key or a cryptographic function. It would be desirable to provide a mechanism for enabling secure communications between a first and second entity when they do not share the requisite secret function, key or other relationship to enable them to establish trust.
A number of other aspects, features, preferences and embodiments are disclosed in the Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiment below.